This can be simply modelled using a critical power calculator. Keep lifting the short duration number holding the long duration number constant and see what happens to the critical power and anaerobic work capacity numbers.

I actually find lifting the longer duration power has a positive effect on both CP and AWC while just lifting the short duration power lifts AWC but can lower CP and the lift in AWC is not as much as building long term power.

Andy Coggan has always suggested that FTP influences power from very long aerobic durations (hours) to very short durations (3-5min). Having coached numerous pursuit cyclists my experience would support this.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

I have been playing around with a critical power calculator:
http://www.twowheelblogs.com/...cal-power-calculator
and as you said when the 3min test result increases and the 12 min test result stays the same the curve is more steep and critical power decreases(although because the curve is negative theoretically it becomes less steep/positive). I was wondering though, if my AT increases and therefore my 3min test increases would my new AT affect my 12min test or would my 12 min test stay the same. If my 3min and 12min test both increase due to increase in AT then my critical power can stay the same/increase.
e.g.
if a 3min test yields 301w and a 12 min test yields 267 it calculates my cp as 250w.
If my anaerobic threshold (at) increases approx. 10% and my 3min test becomes 330 and my 12min test stays at 267 my cp lowers to approx. 235w

But with the increase in anaerobic threshold, would my 12min test increase, because if it increased to 277 (from 267) my cp would remain at 250w. Perhaps with the increase in anaerobic threshold other points along the graph would also increase (i.e. 20, 30, 60 min) and therefore my cp would increase all due to the increase in anaerobic threshold.

Going along the same lines, if my 3min test increases by 10% due to anaerobic threshold increase, suppose the 12min test increased by 6% to 284 then my cp would have increased from 250w originally to 262w.
What I'm trying to ask is whether an increase in anaerobic threshold would only affect short durations or perhaps it would also allow an increase in longer durations. Basically another way to describe the math in my previous post. Does what I describe above ever occur? From what I see, an increase in anaerobic threshold only lowers critical power if anaerobic threshold has no effect on the performance of longer durations (from 12min onward). I'm just very surprised that training certain systems can lower the capabilities of others, I have never considered that before, it'll probably take a while to wrap my head around that.

This matches what I find.


If your anaerobic threshold (~30-45min power) increased I would expect both your 3min and 12min power would increase.

Again matches what I observe and what I have modelled. But what I also observe is that increasing long duration power leads to a greater increase in critical power (~AnThr, FTP, lactate threshold) than by increasing short term durations.

Do you mean anaerobic capacity? An increase in anaerobic capacity will lead to a decrease in critical power. An increase in anaerobic threshold is equivalent to an increase in lactate threshold, critical power and functional threshold.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

my bad, specifically I was referring to anaerobic capacity, and using the calculator, I figured that would increase the 3 min power most significantly, but would also increase the 12 min power a little, 30min power even less, and increase the 60min power just a tiny bit. (that is why I used 10%increase in 3min power and then 6%increase in 12min power to show the decrease in effect I thought anaerobic capacity would have, and that it would always have an effect but the longer the duration the less that effect would be).
Thanks for taking the time to clarify these things, I'm learning lots.

The science is fascinating, all the information about muscle fibres, energy systems, aerobic and anaerobic capacity, muscle recruitment, blood lactate. It's all fascinating.

But the truth is summed up by the results of one very simple test.

Here is the protocol.

1. Encourage the athlete to take several deep breaths.
2. Tape over athletes mouth and nostrils securely.
3. Tell athlete to run on the treadmill, ride bike or row on erg.
4. Measure power in watts or distance achieved until collapse.
5. Resuscitate athlete.

Recent research seems to confirm that the aerobic contribution is greater than once thought even over sprint distances.
Over 400m lasting 45 to 60 seconds the aerobic contribution is 41%. Over 100m 20%. Then at 5,000m you are up to 97%.


So other than for sprint events, if you improve the system that contributes 97% and over by a small margin you will get a far bigger improvement. An improvement to the anaerobic system which contributes less than 3% is not going to make much difference even if you double it. If that anaerobic training interferes with the aerobic training you will go backwards so any anaerobic training must be done very carefully and in small doses and at the right time and you must make sure you are able to recover from it and maintain the aerobic training.

Not really news.

Arthur Lydiard was saying that in the 1950s.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Exactly, and it's a shame people stopped listening to him.

Is it not the case that the lactate threshold can only be improved to within a certain point relative to the VO2max threshold? At that point the only way to make improvements in the lactate threshold is to also raise the VO2max threshold? That would require intervals in the well trained.

---

http://mobile.twitter.com/BLambTriathlete
Athlete of the Week
Meet the Team
Headwear

Could you not ask your coach?

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Yes it seems logical that at some point VO2max must increase to create "more room/ potential" for lactate threshold. Although, threshold training does increase VO2max, just to a slightly lesser extent to VO2max training according to trainingpeaks.
See table 2:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ower-training-levels

I don't think you can just count the ticks in the boxes. You must also take into account how often you can do the intervals and how long they take you to recover from.

Note it says in the table above that Vo2Max / Level 5 is not necessarily desirable even if possible and you should be adequately recovered from previous training before doing them.

Remember also that levels 2 and 3 can increase Vo2 Max and that level 4 is hard, consecutive days are possible but you still need to be recovered enough to do them properly.


It is worth reading the notes by the levels which include descriptions etc. bloody useful tables those even if you don't use the software.

Make sure you're not being fooled by a mathematical modeling artifact.

In my experience, it is entirely possible to increases non-sustainable power significantly w/o any loss of sustainable power ("it's all in how you train").

Beyond just benign neglect? Changes in myosin expression, glycolytic/glycogenolytic/SR enzyme activities, etc., have all be shown to occur with endurance training.

Depends on what you mean by aerobic workouts. Some of the best workouts, sprints, will increase aerobic capacity the most. So is this an aerobic workout? They also will increase anaerobic capacity. So both are increasing. But the problem is that too many sprints breaks down too much so a small amount of high intensity workouts increase aerobic capacity, too much will actually lower it.

Low level workouts also increase aerobic capacity and speed regeneration but they also tend to reduce anaerobic capacity.

Some of this may be based on stressing different types of muscle fibers.

This is from Olbrecht who has supervised the training of over a thousand athletes over the last 25 years, most for an extended period time. Everyone gets tested and everyone keeps track of their workouts. Take it for what it is worth. He discusses the effect of different types of workouts in his book.

He believes too much intensity even when it is below threshold can be too stressful and have negative effects on aerobic capacity.

That is why it is best to experiment and closely monitor your training and evaluate with some type of reliable testing.

Remember, there is never enough aerobic capacity so this should be the main objective of all training programs but in the short term, the threshold will respond to training of the anaerobic system. Most endurance athletes will want to lower it before a race but not too much because the anaerobic system produces the fast fuel for the aerobic system.

That is why there is carb loading and intake of glucose during a race. It is the fast fuel. Fats are the slow fuel. So when the anaerobic capacity is too low it won't throw off enough of the fast fuel for the aerobic system.


Endurance athletes train anaerobic capacity down with the type of training they do. It may not be their objective but is an outcome of their workouts.

Also the anaerobic capacity as measured by a critical speed test is not the same thing Olbrecht calls anaerobic capacity. They are not uncorrelated but they are not equivalent. So when I refer to anaerobic capacity I am referring to the size of the engine that is generating the energy not a measure of the anaerobic work done.

Hope this helps.


-------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

In my experience, it is entirely possible to increases non-sustainable power significantly w/o any loss of sustainable power ("it's all in how you train").[/quote]
Ok that is all I was wondering. I was starting to think that I should avoid anaerobic workouts completely.

Oh, absolutely, esp. during your base phase - otherwise you'll burst all your new-born, fragile capillaries.

Some never have.

---

Steve

http://www.PeaksCoachingGroup.com

Yes indeed, trying to recall a useful quote a knowledgable chap keeps reminding us of, about models.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

"The map is not the territory"? (A. Korzybski) Some just consider that an empty, useless platitude...

Was thinking "all models are wrong..." but that one works as well.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

Andrew Coggan wrote:

It will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years.

You cannot train genetics; http://www.uksport.gov.uk/...6-tall-and-talented/

Indeed, I'm betting on your country's rowers in 2016 (although the NDA I signed w/ the EIS prevents me from saying exactly why).

I'm surprised, given they have been able to measure power for so long, at least on an erg, but now on water as well, rowing has been so slow to take on board your ideas.

I've been meaning to ask this for sometime. For rowing would you still use FTP or would you take a shorter duration than approx an hour? An hour on an erg might be too long?


Back in the days before your ideas, after failing to progress over 2000m, for several months, I switched to doing nothing but 20 minute or 30 minute sessions working at percentages of my maximum 5,000m average power. I then knocked a huge chunk off my 2000m time.


This was back in the 1990s, I was using watts because using pace rowing on an erg can be misleading because you have to increase power by a greater percentage than pace and I found it so much simpler to use watts.


Very odd how rowing went down the pace/ heart rate / lactate measurement route when they had accurate power measurement in watts all along. Suppose it was easier to use pace on water before power measurement.

I'm also surprised by how little rowers know about power, most don't look at it and prefer to look at pace.


I understand if you can't talk about this, but anything you have to add would be appreciated.

That's okay, when doing lactate testing in the late eighties we just used watts to differentiate the stages of the test.

When I got back into coaching in 2005 and did some lab tests it the focus was still on lactate and VO2max. A few power tests but the physiological measures were what the lab rats focused on.

Then I got a power meter in 2006 and the real learning commenced.

---

Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach

You know, I think what happened was people were so set in their ways with the heart rate and lactate and oxygen consumption they forgot what matters which is how fast or how much power. They literally forgot that it's watts that matter.